POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Star Trek movie whoops.... Server Time
9 Oct 2024 12:17:07 EDT (-0400)
  Star Trek movie whoops.... (Message 8 to 17 of 47)  
<<< Previous 7 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Bill Pragnell
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 08:45:00
Message: <web.4a0c1155c0e6495c6dd25f0b0@news.povray.org>
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a
> stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O

If nobody watched it, I seriously doubt it would have racked up 700 episodes and
11 movies... ;-)


Post a reply to this message

From: Invisible
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 09:09:38
Message: <4a0c1812$1@news.povray.org>
Bill Pragnell wrote:

> If nobody watched it, I seriously doubt it would have racked up 700 episodes and
> 11 movies... ;-)

In a similar way, there must be *somebody* somewhere who watches Oprah. 
[Hard to comprehend as that might be...]

Of course, Star Trek isn't nearly as lame as Oprah. Star Trek is 
actually mildly amusing at times. But I didn't think anybody was that 
fussed about it...


Post a reply to this message

From: Chambers
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 10:00:27
Message: <4a0c23fb$1@news.povray.org>
On 5/14/2009 6:09 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>
>> If nobody watched it, I seriously doubt it would have racked up 700
>> episodes and
>> 11 movies... ;-)
>
> In a similar way, there must be *somebody* somewhere who watches Oprah.
> [Hard to comprehend as that might be...]

Middle-aged white housewives.  My wife's not middle-aged yet, but she 
loves Oprah.

(Actually, in all honesty, the show really isn't that bad).

> Of course, Star Trek isn't nearly as lame as Oprah. Star Trek is
> actually mildly amusing at times. But I didn't think anybody was that
> fussed about it...

You're talking about the people who violently opposed a video game 
(Starfleet Command 2) because they got the stats on the spaceship 
movement slightly wrong.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com


Post a reply to this message

From: Mueen Nawaz
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 11:27:23
Message: <4a0c385b$1@news.povray.org>
Invisible wrote:
> Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a
> stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O

	I think you're confusing it with Star Wars.

-- 
If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all those Acme goods, why
didn't he just buy dinner?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 11:28:45
Message: <4a0c38ad$1@news.povray.org>
Invisible wrote:
> Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a 
> stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O

Nerds watch a movie and enjoy it, potentially analyzing plot holes. Real 
nerds arrive wearing star trek shirts (saw that this time...) and analyze 
why the plot holes in *this* movie interact with the plot holes in other 
movies about the same universe.

This guy has way too much time on his hands:
http://popculturezoo.com/archives/2529
(Lots of spoilers there)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!


Post a reply to this message

From: Invisible
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 11:57:40
Message: <4a0c3f74$1@news.povray.org>
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a
>> stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O
> 
> 	I think you're confusing it with Star Wars.

No. Star Wars was *enjoyable* to watch. (Except the recent prequels.)


Post a reply to this message

From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 12:12:35
Message: <4a0c42f3$1@news.povray.org>
On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:57:40 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a
>>> stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O
>> 
>> 	I think you're confusing it with Star Wars.
> 
> No. Star Wars was *enjoyable* to watch. (Except the recent prequels.)

Trek is pretty enjoyable to watch as well.  The thing that both Star Wars 
and Star Trek have in common is that largely the technology used is used 
to support a fairly strong character story - the stories in general 
aren't about the technology.

Particularly in the more resent spin-off series of Trek - DS9 for example.

Pity "Enterprise" was so bad, though - at least the few episodes I 
watched.

Jim


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 13:29:07
Message: <4a0c54e3@news.povray.org>
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Pity "Enterprise" was so bad, though - at least the few episodes I 
> watched.

  Enterprise was not that bad. In fact, it was getting better and better
with each new season. For some reason, though, they cut it short, when it
was getting really good.

  (Voyager almost suffered the same fate, but the writers were able to save
it with 7 of 9. Good move. I liked the whole series (save a few individual
wallbanger episodes), especially from that point forward. You can never
have too much Borg in Star Trek.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 13:56:08
Message: <4a0c5b38$1@news.povray.org>
Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Pity "Enterprise" was so bad, though - at least the few episodes I 
>> watched.
> 
>   Enterprise was not that bad.

I agree. It's not exactly the most awesome thing that's ever existed, 
but it seems reasonably good to me.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*


Post a reply to this message

From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 14:16:01
Message: <4a0c5fe1$1@news.povray.org>
On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:29:07 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Pity "Enterprise" was so bad, though - at least the few episodes I
>> watched.
> 
>   Enterprise was not that bad. In fact, it was getting better and better
> with each new season. For some reason, though, they cut it short, when
> it was getting really good.

I've heard that; part of what turned me off, to be honest, was the "hair 
band" theme music.  But I didn't give it much of a chance, I'll admit to 
that. :-)

>   (Voyager almost suffered the same fate, but the writers were able to
>   save
> it with 7 of 9. Good move. I liked the whole series (save a few
> individual wallbanger episodes), especially from that point forward. You
> can never have too much Borg in Star Trek.)

True, though the problem with an uber-enemy like the Borg is that the 
good guys have to end up with the upper hand at some point - so they go 
from being a really serious threat to being just another bad guy.

I liked Voyager, but it did suffer from "Gilligan's Island" syndrome - 
ie, eventually they have to get "off the island" (ie, get home) so 
there's not much room for variation in the story.

I don't know that Seven saved the show, though; I thought Kes was a much 
more interesting character, and it was a shame that she left.  With Seven 
you basically had another Data-like character who had to learn what it 
meant to be human.  Been there, done that, and I think Brent Spiner did a 
much better job of exploring that idea.

Jim


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 7 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.